I'm getting the impression this game is not a worthy successor to civ I and II

[Stuie]

Originally posted by CyberShy


yeah yeah, you're right.
you know what I mean, don't you ?

Yes. Sorry. I work in software testing.

[Velociryx]

Just saw this thread and had to chime in on the side of Civ as an Empire-Building game, rather than a war game.

Want to play a wargame? Check out pretty much anything ever designed by Gary Grigsby. THAT, my friends, is a war game. It's all about command radius of leaders, armor types, firepower ratios, unit support and supply...tons of stuff that just are not a part (by design, I might add!) of the Civ series.

And you know what, they're a helluva lot of fun to play!

Certainly warfare plays a role in the creation and maintenance of most (not necessarily all, but admittedly, most) empires, but it is not the end-all, be-all, and should not be. That's why, from the very first civ, there were other things to do besides just bash the AI civs. It was an attempt at capturing the feel of creating and managing an empire, and *everything* that went along with that. A splash of warfare, a LOT of resource management (especially in this latest incarnation), and now...the recognition of national culture as a viable, valuable force in the game.

Wargame = Gary Grigsby
Empire Building Game = Sid Meier

Check out the latest Grigsby title....the differences will be readily apparent.



-=Vel=-

[CyberGnu]

Ozy: And I think they who insists that people who are complaining do so because they can't figure out new strategies are compensating for their fantastically small penis size.

Shall we try going back to constructive arguments?

Velociryx et al., I agree completely. Civ is an Empire building game. I wouldn't mind at all if large scale warfare was abolished completely after the invention of the nuke. Let's trade each other out of existance instead...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well... uh... I like this game

Except for the scenario editors being a bit broken, I have little complaints. I'd like Firaxis to fix the bug that made my first save game corrupt, but all in all, a very fun game. That one more turn feeling is definetly back.

And corruption is supposed to be majorly crippling. Firaxis is changing it, because people are complaining so much, not because they think it is broken.

And yes, Civ is an empire building game, NOT a wargame.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Well Steve and others, why are you spending time defending the game?

are you talking to me?

well, if you are, i'm not defending anything, i'm just posting my opinion just like everyone else...

[MarkG]

Originally posted by CDN_Harbinger
So I guess my question is: What are all you supposedly happy Civ3 campers wasting time here attacking the "whiners" when you could be playing this 'fantastic' game from Firaxis/Infogrames?

same to you, are you talking to me?

anyway, first of all, i'm not attacking anyone. second, beyond civ3, i enjoy having a good civ discussion every now and then. is there something wrong with that? must one quit his job and play civ3 24 hours/day so that he can convince people that he likes the game?

[CyberGnu]

Mark: yes, yes and yes

Nah, I enjoy a good discussion as well. It's the 'Civ 3 is a new game, get used to the crappy parts' that feels uncalled for.

Not to mention the one I really have learned to hate... 'You just need to figure out new strategies'. Well, I kicked seven AI's a$$ on deity... and I get that kind of vacca feces from people who still play on regent... I don't think you are guilty of that one yet though...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by GP
I'm getting sick of the blame Brian excuse.

Well, yes, GP, but you must admit there are other excuses that alternate with 'Blame Brian', such as 'Blame Infogrames', 'Blame the Messengers' etc.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by MarkG
hint: everyone needs to rework their civ2 strategies
IT'S A NEW GAME!!!

Mark, I have to agree with Ray here:

Lots of Corruption is OK, but 98% is a bit surreal. Razing cities should rarely be the most efficient way to conquer.

Leave Corruption as it is, but increase the benefits of:

1) Courthouses
2) We Love the King Day
3) Being Commercial
4) Communism/Democracy

[TCO]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Well, yes, GP, but you must admit there are other excuses that alternate with 'Blame Brian', such as 'Blame Infogrames', 'Blame the Messengers' etc.

Hee hee. Well there's also the DMV* response. Go send a note to the official help line. We just come by here for useless shmoozing...not to actually answer real questions.

*beaurocratic part of local governement that does drivers licences.

[EnochF]

I'm not ready to say Civ 3 is flat-out worse than Civ 2... and I'm not returning it, either... but I will say that Civ 3 simply does not fit my gaming style.

It seems to be geared toward the power-gamer set, the people who complained that Civ 2 on Deity level was "too easy." Well, Civ 3 is not "too easy." In fact, I find the game very hard on Chieftain level. So hard that I lose interest in playing. What's the point in going through 6000 years of struggle just to end up in second or third place? I've finished only one game, on Chieftain level, with a quick unsatisfying Diplomatic victory (I couldn't win via any other method, except maybe cultural, because I had no uranium or aluminum to build the spaceship). Even on Chieftain level, rivals civs (supposedly suffering from production penalties) routinely outproduce me in settlers and military units, and beat me to the early Wonders.

At this point, I've decided I simply am not good enough at this game. My attitude is "Okay, you win." "Now where's my Test of Time disk?"

However, I will wait for the patch to the editor so that I can at least have fun changing things.

[Venger]

Originally posted by MarkG
at some point we will have to decide if we want a new game or the same game with better graphics....

How about a game that builds on the successful foundation of previous games and adds those things missing along with some new things? Do we have to throw out the old imperfect system to create a whole new imperfect system?

btw, civ is an empire managment game, not a world conquest one...

You know Mark, maybe if you read the box, you'd see the numerous references to RULING THE WORLD. If I want to manage an empire I'll join the bureaucracy...

Venger

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Not to mention the one I really have learned to hate... 'You just need to figure out new strategies'. Well, I kicked seven AI's a$$ on deity... and I get that kind of vacca feces from people who still play on regent... I don't think you are guilty of that one yet though...

haven't you returned the game?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by EnochF
So hard that I lose interest in playing. What's the point in going through 6000 years of struggle just to end up in second or third place?

who said you have to finish your games?

I've finished only one game, on Chieftain level, with a quick unsatisfying Diplomatic victory

are you saying you have played one game or that you have finished one game(but played more)?

However, I will wait for the patch to the editor so that I can at least have fun changing things.

you cant make scenarios, but you can change things now with the current editor.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Venger
How about a game that builds on the successful foundation of previous games and adds those things missing along with some new things?

one thing of the things missing: conquering half the world in 50 years and having problems or resistense from the conquered population

You know Mark, maybe if you read the box, you'd see the numerous references to RULING THE WORLD. If I want to manage an empire I'll join the bureaucracy...

it's "empire", not "nation". empire always fought big wars. but empires were not just about wars....

[LaRusso]

nah mark, just look at this thread and you will understand the whole mindset. they are out to get it....
allhttp://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33963

[Robert Plomp]

I'm currently playing:
- Emperor
- Huge Map
- Contignents
- English

On my home contignent I've build my palace and the forbidden palace. I moved my palace to the south party of the cont and now all about 25 / 30 cities on it have less then 10% corruption.

I colonized 3 islands, 2 are colonized for just a few turns (20 or something) but the 1st one has already cities for about 50 / 100 turns. Both cities on that island have only 50% corruption.

No problem, as you might see. 50% is quiet realistic for resource colonizations, that are there for the sake of resources.

Am I that good or are you guys that bad ?
I'll post screenshots later.

Conclusion: you can build quiet a big empire with colonies without having to worry too much about corrupion. (of course you have to do the right things to prevent it, which isn't easy, but it can be done)

But as soon as you start to conquer the world..... don't be surprised if the conquered cities will appear to have muuuuuch corruption. quiet realistic I think.

CyberGnu: Why I defend the game ?
Because 'public opinion' can harm the game.
I don't want the game to fail because everyone is crying that it's bad like happened to CtP2.

that's why there's a difference between putting up the bugs and the problems (there are bugs and problems ! I admit) and shouting out in 100 threads that the game sucks.

You can have your opinion, even if that opinion says it sucks, but I'll fight that opinion. It has some bugs, even some very important (fatal ) ones, but the game doesn't suck.

I want to have civ4 in a few years, and civ3mp in half a year, that won't be accomplished if everyone around the world thinks the game sucks and won't buy it for that reason. That would be good *if* the game would suck, but it doesn't. It's better than civ2 all the way. (and better than smac / ctp / ctp2 / tot)

CyberShy

[Venger]

Originally posted by LaRusso
nah mark, just look at this thread and you will understand the whole mindset. they are out to get it....
allhttp://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33963

Run away! Run away! The evil people are here to ruin our Civ3!

Simpleton.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by MarkG
one thing of the things missing: conquering half the world in 50 years and having problems or resistense from the conquered population

Resistance? Actually well done - you must garrison troops to end resistance. Very nice. However, the Moors conquered most of Iberia and ruled it for 700 years without the cities there not producing anything. Many empires managed to rule conquered cities without all the people being on strike...

it's "empire", not "nation". empire always fought big wars. but empires were not just about wars....

I'm not sure I even understand what you are saying here...

Venger

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Venger
Resistance? Actually well done - you must garrison troops to end resistance. Very nice. However, the Moors conquered most of Iberia and ruled it for 700 years without the cities there not producing anything. Many empires managed to rule conquered cities without all the people being on strike...

the span of that empire was about 10 squares on a civ map

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Venger
I'm not sure I even understand what you are saying here...

great empires became... great with wars. so yes, a civ game should have lots of lots of war
but keeping an empire great is not just about making wars....

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm currently playing:
- Emperor
- Huge Map
- Contignents
- English
CyberShy

The English have the special advantage that curtails corruption. Have you tried anything similar playing any of the 11 civs that are not Commercial?

[Dev]

Originally posted by LaRusso


the span of that empire was about 10 squares on a civ map

Mr. Logic strikes again.

Let me see you fit all the major spanish cities on that map of yours and I'll show you how 95% of them become starving dying wrecks.....

/dev

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Dev
Mr. Logic strikes again.

Dev, your behaviour has already been one of the reasons for the closure of a thread today

let's not double the number.....

[Robert Plomp]

The English have the special advantage that curtails corruption. Have you tried anything similar playing any of the 11 civs that are not Commercial?

I've played Iraqoius as well.
Got some more problems with corruption indeed, but after managing far away cities for a number of time very well (rush building some buildings etc.) I got them to have less then 97% corruption as well (30% production or something)

but again, that was 'only' at King level
Next game I'll start at Deity.
Huge map, 10 civs or something. Must be cool !
(anybody already beated the AI in that way ?)

2nd, well, play commercial civ.......
next game I'll play commercial and religious. (is there any ?)

[Dev]

So calling someones BS is an offence ?

Please.

On 2nd thoughts that's pretty cool, I can bully people just by threatening to post in their threads

/dev

[Dev]

Cybershy, india is what you're looking for.

Good non resource UU too

/dev

[Robert Plomp]

Next game I'll be India.
I'll open a thread later today with some screenshots from my current Emperor game.

I hear much people whining about civ3, and just a little post their gaming experiences. That's a pitty

I think my screenshots show in how much big problems I am with all those huge empires around me.
Germans have started theri 3rd row of cities.
(1row = Berlin, Bremen etc.
2nd row = New Berlin, New Bremen,
3rd row = Berlin 2, Bremen 2 )

are that much cities or not ?
Well, Germans, Russians, Romans, Greek, Egyptians, Chinese..... they all have that much cities

poor me............
But I'll stand the test of time.
I have colonized oil, coal and I appeared to have 2 resources of Alluminium

The game rocks !
Iraqoius are going to be toast, the only civ that's even worse then me

CyberShy

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Let's list the things people did not expect and you can tell me if they are valid issues:

1) I expected MP. This feature was planned on and dropped at the last possible minute. Don't believe me? Check out your Civ3 root directory.

Valid issue? Maybe in the fact that they didn't tell everyone it wasn't in the game til two weeks before the game came out, but they DID tell people before the game hit the stores, so...

NO, not a valid issue when you knew before you bought the game it didn't have MP (or should have known).

2) I expected a functional scenario editor to be included with my purchase, not the POS they have in there now.

Valid issue, but one that will (supposedly) be fixed. How many other games have you ever bought that came with some "feature" missing or broken besides Civ3? LOL, I can name at least three games in the last 6-9 months that I have seen or played that came this way. Doesn't mean it's less of an issue, but... *shrug*

(Psst, I don't like it either, but since I typically only play random games this isn't a big issue for me.)

3) I most certainly did not expect corruption to be so crippling. Why should I go into the editor to fix something that should not have been messed up to begin with?

Well, no one expected corruption to be so bad, mainly because no other Civ game, including SMAC, has ever had a "somewhat real" view of how distance from city capital works.

For the record, I also think it's a little far reached, but if you look at real world history you often see examples of cities having rampant corruption when placed far distances from their capital. Only in the "modern world" do we see less of a correlation in this.

Hmm, maybe if someone developed 5 additional government types, "modern monarchy, modern democracy, modern repiblic", etc, that greatly reduced corruption this would be less of an issue.

There are mod's already that allow police stations to reduce corruption as well, you could always load those, or change it yourself in the editor.

3) I also did not expect that nukes would be so pitiful.

More to come....

Yeah, nukes suck, but again, I believe you can edit those with the editor...

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ozy: And I think they who insists that people who are complaining do so because they can't figure out new strategies are compensating for their fantastically small penis size.

CyberGnu: And I think those who like to flame first then complain about others not offering constructive arguments are valliantly trying to prove they have a penis.

Shall we try going back to constructive arguments?

I have offered constructive arguments. I have also posted on how some people seem to complain mainly because "their" strategies for Civ2 don't work 100% in this game either.

I never said the game was perfect, but I DID say that people who don't want the game to be more than Civ2/SMAC with different graphics should realize this is NOT the same game and to adjust.

See the difference?

Velociryx et al., I agree completely. Civ is an Empire building game. I wouldn't mind at all if large scale warfare was abolished completely after the invention of the nuke. Let's trade each other out of existance instead...

Heh, oh gee, your bitterness shows through in your sacrastic remarks to myself and others... Hmm, what happened yo your "constructive arguments"?

You sure you are in the fight forum? "Mrfixitonline.com" and "Heavengames.com" both have very good sections on RTS games, maybe you should look there instead?